Menu

Adsense

Search This Blog

cj

Wednesday, 19 June 2013

Couples who have premarital sex to be considered married: Madras High Court

Madras High Court has, in a judgement, said if
any unmarried couple of the right legal age "indulge in sexual
gratification," this will be considered a valid marriage and they could
be termed "husband and wife."

In what can be seen as a new twist to the concept of premarital sex, the
Madras High Court has in a judgement said if any unmarried couple of
the right legal age "indulge in sexual gratification," this will be
considered a valid marriage and they could be termed "husband and wife.

The
court said that if a bachelor has completed 21 years of age and an
unmarried woman 18 years, they have acquired the freedom of choice
guaranteed by the Constitution. "Consequently, if any couple choose to
consummate their sexual cravings, then that act becomes a total
commitment with adherence to all consequences that may follow, except on
certain exceptional considerations."

The court said marriage formalities as per various religious customs
such as the tying of a mangalsutra, the exchange of garlands and rings
or the registering of a marriage were only to comply with religious
customs for the satisfaction of society.

The court further said
if necessary either party to a relationship could approach a Family
Court for a declaration of marital status by supplying documentary proof
for a sexual relationship. Once such a declaration was obtained, a
woman could establish herself as the man's wife in government records.

The
court also said if after having a sexual relationship, the couple
decided to separate due to difference of opinion, the 'husband' could
not marry without getting a decree of divorce from the 'wife'.

Justice
C.S. Karnan passed the order yesterday while modifying an April 2006
judgment of a Coimbatore family court in a maintenance case involving a
couple, The Hindu reports.

The lower court had ordered the man to
pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 500 to the couple's two children and Rs.
1000 as litigation expenses. The lower court observed that the woman's
wedding with the man had not been proved by documentary evidence. Hence,
she was not entitled to maintenance.

In her appeal to the High Court, the woman's counsel contended that she was legally married and had two children in wedlock.